Jump to content
The Education Forum

Game over for “inside jobbers”

Len Colby

Recommended Posts

Khaled Sheik Mohamed (the mastermind of the plot) and four co-defendants want to confess, they have never said “we didn’t do it” or “we did it but Bush was in on it” etc. They are not trying to trade their confessions for lighter sentences; in fact they seem destined to get the death penalty.

The alleged mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks and four other detainees reduced their war crimes trial at Guantánamo Bay to a state of confusion yesterday by telling a US military judge that they wanted to plead guilty and enter a confession.

The request, brought by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on behalf of all five men, was made in front of nine relatives of the 9/11 victims who were flown out to Guantánamo by the US military to witness the Bush administration's military tribunals.


Also as far as I know neither OBL nor any other AQ leaders have ever denied being responsible for the attacks unless you want to count OBL supposed denial that came via the Taliban.

Well I guess there is always LIHOP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Here is an easy example: the identity of the hijackers. The FBI had distributed a list naming 18 of the 19 alleged hijackers by 10 AM on 9/11.

A bit inaccurate and distorted, he cited Richard Clarke’s book and Thompson’s Timeline. Neither said they’d had the names of 18 of the hijackers at that point, he conveniently left out this ID’s were based on the passenger manifests.

Clarke said he was told the following by Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division just before 10, "We got the passenger manifests from the airlines. We recognize some names, Dick. They're al-Qa'ida." He made no mention of how many people Watson had IDed

The online version of Thompson’s book said the FBI IDed 18 of the 19 only Sept 13 but noted the head of Customs and Boarder Patrol claimed that by 11 AM “Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers” by “by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information”. However it added that he “appears to be at least somewhat incorrect”


2 Within two weeks the identities of at least six of the hijackers were unclear; as men in Arab countries with the same names and histories, and in some cases the same photographs, were protesting that they were alive and innocent.3 In response to these protests, FBI Director Robert Mueller soon acknowledged that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers was in doubt.4 But there is no discussion of this problem in the detailed treatment of the alleged hijackers in the 9/11 Commission Report.5

This silliness has been dealt with here. The photos and histories that matched came from the media not the FBI. Some reporters discovered pilots with the same or similar names to men on the list and assumed they were the same people. The BBC retracted their story. Though the head of the FBI said on Sept. 20 and (according to Loose Change) on Sept 27 that there were doubts about some the names by November 2 he said all such doubts had been resolved.



2) WTC-7. This is obviously a big area of doubt, as you have just heard. The Report’s solution was not to mention WTC-7 at all.

I assume that people who raise this objection never actually read the report because it didn’t mention any the collapses except discuss the evacuation procedures. WTC-7 was evacuated without incident hours before it collapsed. The collapses including that of 7 were discussed by the American Society of Civil Engineers and NIST.

3) The U.S. government’s intimate on-going connection to al-Qaeda and a chief 9/11 plotter.

Scott produced no evidence of “the U.S. government’s intimate on-going connection to al-Qaeda”. He does however raise legitimate questions about Ali Mohamed. As per his footnotes his account is based largely on the works of Peter Lance and Lawrence Wright. What he fails to mention is that neither journalist who spent years researching the story interviewing hundreds of people and examining government and AQ documents, backs what he seems to be insinuating (but never says out right), that this indicates 9/11 and other AQ were sponsored or at least intentionally allowed to happen by the FBI/CIA etc.

None of what Scott wrote changes the fact that KSM and other detainees have admitted their role in 9/11 for years never said the US gov’t or any other group was “in on it” and indicated their willingness to confess in court with journalists and victim’s next of kin present and seemed to destined to get the death penalty.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they confess to receiving $100,000 from the head of Pakistani intelligence while he was in Washington D.C. visiting his friends at CIA?

Did they confess to being trained by Ali Mohammad, the former US Special Forces soldier who also trained those at The Camp at Quantico?

Did they confess to having thier pilots learn to fly at CIA backed flight school Florida?

Did they confess to having set up a safe house for thier hijackers whose landlord was an FBI informant?

Did they confess to having started their jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan with CIA backing and support?

How is it not an inside job again?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once every six months there is a widespread story in the Corporate Media about MSM.... er KSM, sorry I get them mixed up. All of the other questions, a very small sample of which were asked in the preceeding post, are completely left out, and are even known by perhaps 1% of the population. The KSM stuff, however, will probably be heard by 80% of the population, being covered on all of the media with wide audiences.

Of course these now all but forgotten questions were very much "mainstream" in 2001 and 2002. Some questions are just dropped and left unmediated. This alone-- in our Orwellian media environment-- guarantees that they will become "Conspiracy Theories"

KSM, once every six months. This is the recipe for "Conspiracy Theory".

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they confess to receiving $100,000 from the head of Pakistani intelligence while he was in Washington D.C. visiting his friends at CIA?

Supposedly the money came from a Pakistani militant named Ahmad Umar Sayeed Sheikh. It is unclear on whose behalf he was acting.

There is no real evidence the money came from ISI Director-General Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad other than the undocumented claims of unidentified unnamed “senior [indian] government sources” cited by the Times of India (ToI). Given the animosity between the two governments (especially over the ISI support of Kashmiri separatists) and that Indian was presumably concerned by the US’s approximation with it’s archenemy such claims are to be viewed with suspicion, it would be akin to anonymous CIA sources claiming during the Cold War that the KGB was involved in some infamous act especially if the victim nation was becoming friendly with the Soviets.

If you put so much faith in Indian press accounts citing anonymous Indian gov’t officials one from Frontline magazine (publish by The Hindu, the country’s largest circulation newspaper) says that the money Sheikh was acting on behalf of the head of a Kashmir separatist group called Jaish-e-Mohammad.


According to Time (as quoted by ABC) the money “can be traced directly to people connected with Osama bin Laden”


Even if the money came from the head of the ISI this proves little unless you can show that he did the CIA’s bidding. According to the ToI “US authorities sought his removal after confirming” he was responsible for the transfer.


As for the timing accounts vary both Indian sources say it was a single transfer in the summer of 2000 while Time (once again as quoted by ABC) said it various transfers and “some of that money came in the days just before the attack”

Did they confess to being trained by Ali Mohammad, the former US Special Forces soldier who also trained those at The Camp at Quantico?

AFAIK Ali Mohamed was never station at Quantico and never trained American troops. I like to see a citation for such claims. The best research on him was b Peter Lance and Lawrence Wright both concluded he was and AQ agent was played the US rather than as US agent who manipulated AQ.

Did they confess to having thier pilots learn to fly at CIA backed flight school Florida?

I don’t know of any evidence the schools were CIA backed, can you provide any?

Did they confess to having set up a safe house for thier hijackers whose landlord was an FBI informant?

An FBI informant, who was also a Muslim and apparently met them at a local mosque let 2 of the hijackers stay at his apt. for a few days and helped them find a place to stay. I doubt they would have told many people even their co religionists. Do you have any evidence he had inkling what they were up to? If so do you have evidence he passed this info on to the FBI?

Did they confess to having started their jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan with CIA backing and support?

What evidence do you have that the CIA “backed and supported” the Arab Afgans in general or bin Laden in particular? According to most accounts “we” only helped the Afghan Mujuhadeen. Even if true it would prove little they united against a common enemy. The US and USSR worked together in WW2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agence France-Presse also reported being told that Ahmad was behind the transfer:

A highly-placed government source told AFP that the "damning link" between the general and the transfer of funds to Atta was part of evidence which India has officially sent to the US.

"The evidence we have supplied to the US is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism," the source said.


Once again the source is anonymous and we aren’t told what the evidence is. The 'source' could even be the same person who spoke to the ToI.

Even the unnamed Indian government official called Ahmad “a rogue general” which implies the ISI (let alone the CIA) was not involved.

I made an error in my previous post, the Hindu, ISN’T India’s largest circulation paper but is rather 3rd most read English newspaper and 5th or 6th overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former (1987 – 9) ISI chief Lieutenant General (ret.) Hamid Gul is no friend of the US. He was apparently angered by the abandonment of Afghanistan and later sanctions imposed on his coutry (1, 2). In 2003 he declared “God will destroy the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever it will try to go from there… the Muslim world must stand united to confront the U.S. in its so-called War on Terrorism, which is in reality a war against Muslims. Let's destroy America wherever its troops are trapped." (2) US backed Benazir Bhutto said he was one of the people trying to kill her (3). The US told the UN they considered him an “international terrorist” (4) and also said he was tied to the Taliban, Al Queda and the recent Mumbai massacre (5).

He was recently interviewed on CNN and said he thought 9/11 was an inside job (6, 7). He explained his reasons to Alex Jones. He didn’t base this so much on his experience in the ISI as many common “truther” misconceptions "Hani Hanjour could not have made this flying maneuver," "the US Air Force intercepts hijacked planes in seven minutes." (6)

Jones asked him if he believed that Ahmed was the person who sent Atta the money and his answer was an unequivocal “not at all…I think this is all disinformation which is being adopted as a very sophisticated intelligence art” (7)

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Gul#cit...erviewDec2008-2


3) http://www.dawn.com/2007/12/30/top12.htm

4) http://www1.economictimes.indiatimes.com/P...how/3799024.cms

5) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8120803612.html

6) http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/...-isi-chief.html


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...